4 ms·

As a small l libertarian, I’m totally fine with any and all drugs being legal provided there is a clause that government doesn’t need to support you if they rui

by Vaslo 3y ago

As a small l libertarian, I’m totally fine with any and all drugs being legal provided there is a clause that government doesn’t need to support you if they ruin your life.

geraldhh 3y ago
it's only ruined w/o the support; which usually is way cheaper than the alternatives. think "too big to fail"
seabass-labrax 3y ago
Without regard to the philisophical aspects of the extent of state welfare, such a clause would be unworkable. How could you fairly determine the cause of health issues? If one gets completely drunk, stumbles onto a road and is hit by a car, you could say that intoxication caused the accident. Would you refuse to treat that person's injuries - which are themselves nothing to do with alcohol - due to that? What about if there was a very bad unmarked pothole which caused the person to trip, a hazard that exists regardless of intoxication? All these questions could be resolved with litigation using many of the same processes that the courts already have. However, I would wager that the state would spend as much additional money on the judiciary as they would simply providing an unconditional paramedic service in the first place! This also applies to financial situations, because it's hard to, say, confidently ascribe the failure of someone's life savings on a supposedly poor choice they made while under the influence of a drug. I personally think it would be inhumane not to provide a safety net, but it would also be considerably cheaper to!
npteljes 3y ago
The government already takes care of many people who ruin their lives in different ways. Cannabis being a bit more legal doesn't change this. I suspect it even lowers the overall cost, as it lifts some burden off of law enforcement.
DonHopkins 3y ago
Then you should become a Big-R Republican if you already aren't -- they're all about punishing people for perceived moral failings by withholding health care and food and education.

by Vaslo 3y ago

As a small l libertarian, I’m totally fine with any and all drugs being legal provided there is a clause that government doesn’t need to support you if they ruin your life.

geraldhh 3y ago

it's only ruined w/o the support; which usually is way cheaper than the alternatives. think "too big to fail"

seabass-labrax 3y ago

Without regard to the philisophical aspects of the extent of state welfare, such a clause would be unworkable. How could you fairly determine the cause of health issues? If one gets completely drunk, stumbles onto a road and is hit by a car, you could say that intoxication caused the accident. Would you refuse to treat that person's injuries - which are themselves nothing to do with alcohol - due to that? What about if there was a very bad unmarked pothole which caused the person to trip, a hazard that exists regardless of intoxication? All these questions could be resolved with litigation using many of the same processes that the courts already have. However, I would wager that the state would spend as much additional money on the judiciary as they would simply providing an unconditional paramedic service in the first place! This also applies to financial situations, because it's hard to, say, confidently ascribe the failure of someone's life savings on a supposedly poor choice they made while under the influence of a drug. I personally think it would be inhumane not to provide a safety net, but it would also be considerably cheaper to!

npteljes 3y ago

The government already takes care of many people who ruin their lives in different ways. Cannabis being a bit more legal doesn't change this. I suspect it even lowers the overall cost, as it lifts some burden off of law enforcement.

DonHopkins 3y ago

Then you should become a Big-R Republican if you already aren't -- they're all about punishing people for perceived moral failings by withholding health care and food and education.